Pinoy street lawyer Danielito “DJ” Jimenez on Monday said the grave threats case against Vice President Sara Duterte is “apparently prospering” and could serve as a “test case” involving an impeachable officer facing a separate criminal prosecution.
Jimenez said the case could help clarify how a criminal complaint against an impeachable officer may proceed while impeachment proceedings are ongoing.
“I think it could also be treated as a test case because this is the first time a criminal complaint against an impeachable officer apparently is prospering,” Jimenez said.
He made the statement during an interview on Bilyonaryo News Channel’s At The Forefront with Atty. Karen Jimeno.
Jimenez was asked about the timing of the filing of the criminal case given that the alleged grave threats were made in 2024 against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos and then-House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
He said it is not necessarily unusual for another legal action to proceed while an impeachment case is pending.
Jimenez cited the quo warranto case against former Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno, which proceeded while impeachment proceedings were also ongoing.
“For example, yung quo warranto ni former Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno, nag-prosper din yun while impeachment is ongoing,” he said.
“Kasi it takes a while for a process to progress,” Jimenez added.
Jimenez, however, stressed that the filing of charges and the eventual outcome of a case are separate matters.
“Of course, yung charging is one thing, whether the case will prosper is another matter,” he said.
He also said the Constitution does not automatically shield an impeachable officer from a separate criminal prosecution.
“The Constitution is also clear that the impeachable officer who is not immune from suit may still be subject to a separate criminal prosecution,” Jimenez said.
He noted, however, that the Constitution provides that upon conviction in an impeachment trial, an impeachable officer may still be subjected to prosecution, trial and judgment.
“The Constitution uses the word conviction so it presupposes that there should first be a conviction and then prosecution will follow, trial will follow, and then judgment,” he said.#